G.R. No. 214336-37 - Libunao vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214336-37)

Factual Background and Charges

The case revolves around the misuse of funds from the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) allocated to Congressman Constantino H. Navarro, Jr. for 1997-1998 procurement projects in Surigao Del Norte’s 1st District. The Commission on Audit (COA) post-audit revealed that Pharmaceutic and agricultural goods were purchased through direct contracting, bypassing the mandatory public bidding required by E.O. No. 302. These procurement activities involved medicines, shabu testing kits, nebulizing machines, sporting materials, and araro tools. An overpricing amounting to approximately ₱2.86 million (13.6% to 506% above prevailing market prices) was established. The Office of the Ombudsman indicted Libunao and other public officials for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for giving unwarranted benefits through gross inexcusable negligence or bad faith by-entering contracts without public bidding.

Specific Accusations Against Libunao

Criminal Case No. 27803 involved the procurement of 45 boxes of assorted medicines from San Marino Laboratories Corporation for ₱2 million, overpriced by ₱1.24 million.
Criminal Case No. 27805 involved the procurement of 1,200 sets of araro tools from Revelstone Sales International for ₱900,000, overpriced by ₱108,000.
Libunao was charged with conspiring to give unwarranted benefits and causing undue injury to the government by approving, certifying, and authorizing payments for these contracts without public bidding.

Evidence and Trial Proceedings

The prosecution offered testimonies from COA auditors, pharmacists, and businessmen to establish procurement irregularities and overpricing. Documentary evidence included Requisition and Issue Vouchers (RIVs), Purchase Orders (POs), Disbursement Vouchers (DVs), certifications, and signed checks by Libunao.
Libunao’s defense was that he relied on his subordinates’ assurance about the transaction’s propriety and that his role was ministerial, limited to signing documents without full knowledge of contract details or the bidding process.

Sandiganbayan’s Findings and Decision

The Sandiganbayan found Libunao guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in both cases. The court emphasized:

The absence of public bidding was a clear breach of E.O. No. 302.
Libunao acted with at least gross inexcusable negligence by blindly signing procurement documents that were “one-page” and plainly showed direct contracting.
Evidence established unwarranted benefits to private parties and undue injury to the government in the form of overpricing.
The prosecution sufficiently proved that the violation caused actual damage, particularly in the medicines procurement, while evidence for overpricing in the araro tools case was less conclusive.
Libunao was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six years and one month to ten years, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office for each count. The Sandiganbayan acquitted other accused suppliers for lack of evidence of criminal intent.

Legal Issues on Due Process and Charge Sufficiency

Libunao contended that his constitutional rights were violated because the charges in the information cited Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019, but he was convicted under Section 3(e). The Court held:

The substance of the charges, not their technical caption, determines the nature of the offense; hence the information sufficiently described a violation of Section 3(e).
The information was not duplicitous because it charged one offense with particularity, sufficiently informing Libunao to prepare his defense.
Libunao waived the right to question the validity of the information for failure to file a motion to quash before pleading.

Elements of Violation Under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019

The Court reiterated the elements:

The accused is a public officer acting in official capacity.
The accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
The act caused undue injury to any party or conferred unwarranted benefits to a private party in the performance of official functions.
The Court adopted jurisprudence clarifying that only one of the three mental states needs to be shown.

Analysis of Gross Inexcusable Negligence

The Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that Libunao’s failure to exercise due diligence in verifying the legality of procurement was gross inexcusable negligence:

As DILG Regional Director for 39 years, Libunao had substantial experience and was expected to be conversant with procurement rules.
The direct contracting and absence of public bidding were evident from the documents he approved.
His blind reliance on subordinates’ assurances was unreasonable, especially since the irregularities were plainly discernible without detailed examination.
His role was not merely ministerial; authorizing payments and certifying expenses indicated active consummation of illegal contracts.

Undue Injury and Unwarranted Benefits

The Court emphasized:

“Unwarranted benefits” must be connected to graft and corruption; gross negligence is sufficient to satisfy the mental element where corrupt intent is not proven.
Undue injury to the government must be proven by reasonable basis, not necessarily with absolute certainty.
In this case, overpricing in the procurement of medicines from San Marino was conclusively established, causing actual undue injury.
Overpricing and injury from the araro tools procurement was not sufficiently demonstrated.

Application of Procurement Laws and Policy Considerations

The Court highlighted:

The requirement of public competitive bidding under E.O. No. 302, its implementing rules, and other laws is a matter of public policy to ensure transparency, competitiveness, fairness, and accountability in government contracts.
The exceptions to public bidding are limited and specific; none of these applied in the transactions.
Procurement laws have a long historical foundation in the Philippines and are well-established by 1998.

Rejection of Libunao’s Defense Based on Reliance on Subordinates

The Court rejected Libunao's invocation of the Arias doctrine, which permits reliance in good faith on subordinates, reasoning:

The circumstances called for heightened vigilance from a high-ranking official.
The absence of bidding was easily ascertainable on the face of the documents submitted for signature.
Blind trust without oversight constitutes gross inexcusable

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 214336-37)

Introduction and Procedural History

This case arises from a consolidated Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
It challenges the Sandiganbayan First Division’s Decision dated January 16, 2014, and Resolution dated September 12, 2014.
Petitioner, Quirino M. Libunao, was convicted for two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The case concerns irregular procurement from the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) allocated to Constantino H. Navarro, Jr., a former congressman.
The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a special review revealing violation of procurement laws and overpricing.
Co-accused include Navarro, other DILG officials, and private entities involved in the procurement.

Factual Background

Navarro’s CDF (1997-1998) was used to purchase assorted goods including medicines, shabu testing kits, araro tools, and school supplies.
The purchases bypassed public bidding, conducted through direct contracting, violating Executive Order No. 302.
COA audit showed overpricing ranging from 13.6% to 506% compared to prevailing market prices.
Notices of Disallowance were issued by COA due to these irregularities.
Charges were filed before Sandiganbayan against Navarro, Libunao (Regional Director of DILG-Caraga), other DILG officials, and supplier representatives.

Specific Charges Against Petitioner

Criminal Case No. 27803 charged Libunao with conspiring to give unwarranted benefits to San Marino Laboratories Corporation through a contract for 45 boxes of assorted medicines worth P2,000,000 without public bidding.
Criminal Case No. 27805 charged him with similar acts favoring Revelstone Sales International for 1,200 sets of araro tools worth P900,000, priced disadvantageously to the government.
Charges detailed acting in evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence causing undue injury to the government.

Trial and Evidence

Libunao pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
Prosecution presented testimonies of COA auditors, a pharmacist, a crime lab official, and a businessman.
Evidence included Requisition and Issue Vouchers (RIVs), Purchase Orders (POs), Disbursement Vouchers (DVs), certificates, and signed checks.
Libunao admitted signing documents based on subordinate assurances, asserting reliance due to workload and position.

Findings and Decision of the Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Libunao, with others, gave unwarranted benefits through direct contracting.
Private respondents were acquitted due to insufficient proof of criminal intent.
Libunao was found guilty under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in both cases.
He was sentenced to indeterminate imprisonment of six years and one month minimum to ten years maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
Civil liability was assessed on one private respondent but not on others.
Reconsideration motions by Libunao were denied.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review

Libunao argued violation of constitutional rights to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations.
Claimed conviction was for a crime different from that charged (Section 3(e) conviction despite Information citing Section 3(g)).
Argued no conspiracy or contract with suppliers, and that the elements of Section 3(e) or 3(g) were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Claimed violation of duplicity rules as the Information charged more than one offense.

Jurisprudential Principles on Charging and Notice

The Court reaffirmed that the nature of the crime depends on facts alleged in the Information, not its technical title.
The accused is sufficiently informed if the facts are detailed with reasonable certainty, enabling adequate defense preparation.
Duplicity in Information must be timely challenged or deemed waived; Libu